Why do you think the problem you describe is at all realistic? "anyone who doesn't own a business would most likely die off"--that's never happened as a result of any other technological advance, ever. Have you heard of the Luddites? They thought that the advances in technology during the industrial revolution would cause mass unemployment--they were wrong. People have continued to say this about every new technology, and they're always wrong.

What actually happens when less labor is needed for certain tasks is that it is reallocated to other tasks. The result is that more is produced, and society becomes more prosperous.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

The funny thing is this is an old problem as shown by satirical cartoons from the 1700's.

I suppose it would be hoped that those people made unemployed by machines would seek out other work, or emigrate. A minority could be re-employed by the expanding robot factories (until they become fully automated I guess). Private charity would still exist to support the long term unemployed.

I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.

Do these machines produce all of the consumer goods that anyone wants? If not, then there is still a demand for labor--to build more robots. If this is the case, then the result is that people do have jobs (building robots), and, not only that, the workers are far better off then they were before. Because of the great increase in the production of consumer goods, goods cost far less, and workers are able to buy far more things.

And what if it reaches the point where the machines are capable of producing an unlimited amount of goods? Then there is no more work, and everyone gets everything for free. You might respond that the business owners own the machines, and thus own products, and can selfishly keep them, but if that is the case, then there is an unmet demand for goods. That is--the average person wants stuff, and doesn't have it. So someone could profit by creating more machines for these people. If the unmet demand remains, the opportunity for profit remains, until we're back at the point where everyone can get everything they want for free from these miracle machines.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

I'm talking about robots that REPLACE humans, not "knitting machines" which are still used by people and serve to increase human productivity.

It's the same principle. Go ahead and replace all humans in the production process with robots. Nobody will have any money to buy your products. Fail business model is fail.

Aw but you see, you make a point against Capitalism. Bosses don't make business decisions of macro-economics in mind, they do it to advance profits as it seems evident.

*Sigh* why do people automatically assume that under capitalism, everyone has a low time preference?

I'll humor you. Let's say all workers are replaced by robots. Now what? They can't buy products from big businesses anymore. There would be a glut in supply, causing prices to drastically fall and businesses to fail. Meanwhile the laid off workers would begin producing things for themselves or starting their own small businesses and the division of labor would reach a new equilibrium.

It's not a realistic scenario because the same market forces that stabilize the situation would be in force preventing it from reaching that point to begin with.

At 11/16/2010 12:26:00 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:*Sigh* why do people automatically assume that under capitalism, everyone has a low time preference?

I'll humor you. Let's say all workers are replaced by robots. Now what? They can't buy products from big businesses anymore. There would be a glut in supply, causing prices to drastically fall and businesses to fail. Meanwhile the laid off workers would begin producing things for themselves or starting their own small businesses and the division of labor would reach a new equilibrium.

It's not a realistic scenario because the same market forces that stabilize the situation would be in force preventing it from reaching that point to begin with.

What happens when the business owners decide that paying human employees is no longer profitable and replaces us with technology that can do our job more efficiently and with no pay?

Honestly, as far as I can tell. Most any libertarian you talk too will say for the former employees to suck it up and adapt to the market as if it was part of nature. You know, cause in nature we just kill and rape everything to get by... But in the magical world of libertarinism you should not only work and cooperate, but do so even when sh1t is put infront of your way to prevent you from work and cooperation.

In a system without welfare, anyone who doesn't own a business would most likely die off.

>>Implying libertarians give a sh1t...

And remember, no unions either. So you can't have people back you up to protect you. Oh, and if you're an anarcho-capitalist, private court rooms. Goodluck getting some judge to side with the guy who CAN'T bribe him... I swear, an anarcho-capitalist argued with me that the judge would be fair and neutral because he'd get more buisness that way then being corrupt. How do you figure? Just spin it that the poor are bitter because they're wrong and just "parasites". Have the rich win every case, and occassionally just to insure the masses stay ignorant, side with the poor on an issue. Preferably a petty one. Like when Wal-Mart sued a vegitative woman for her insurance money of 400,000 dollars. Which was pocket change for Wal-Mart... btw, Wal-Mart won that one.

Does laissez-faire Capitalism have a solution for this problem? Or, perhaps more importantly, do you even recognize this as a problem?

Nope, to them it's never a problem. Honestly, I don't think these wangst teenagers are smart enough to know idiocracy goes back much farther then Ayn Rand, and was originally called PLUTOCRACY. As well, the same way we could have abortions, prostitutes, and this bullcrap of private judges and loss of jobs in "free markets" we could have hit men. Infact, hit men would be the only great equalizer in the road warrior's marketplace of libertarinism. We'd hire people to kill the mother f*ckers who put us out of a job or are being f@ggots... To put laws against it would be "socialist"! WAAAAHHHHH!!!! Suddenlly libertarians change their tune and start talking about "non-aggression principle". Which basically translates too "it's only okay if I say it is". Because yeah, f@gs are "consenting adults", but do I consent to f@ggotry taking place? No... noone cares about me though.

So why should I care when me and an @ssassin make a perfectly legitamate agreement and it results in some libertarian ret@rd dying? That'd be one thing I like about libertarinism. Murder would happen much more often and more would get away with it. Good luck getting the private police force to work with you, when they know you're desperate and can milk you for all you're worth. Then you have to hope a private judge is willing to partake your case and heck.. why would we have private police and judges is market anarchy anyway? It's stupid. It's like keeping the state merely for theatrical purposes. In true libertarinism, if you can't hold onto it yourself, it's gone. In true anarchist fashion!!!

It'll start off as a chaotic f*ckfest, and then work it's way up to an authoritarian state when gangs start emerging and one starts dominating the other factions. You can't have civilization without a state, and you sure as heck can't get away from tyranny whilest using a monetary value. Another logical fallacy about libertarinism. Why would anyone use currency when they don't have too? Who decides to issue currency and who validates it?

It's more like what I find, I keeps. And if people out of the kindness of their heart don't decide to kill you and take your food/land, congratulations. You've just experienced libertarinism! But don't expect it to happen all the time...

There is some truth in this scenario. We have become more of a service related job economy as a result of automation and greater efficiencies. I don't know that it's bad or good, nor would i attribute any unemployment on this factor, but rather a different type of employment.

However, i don't know if it's accurate to entirely blame capitalism on it, or a libertarian model on it. It's inevitable because it is the nature of progress, and Progress =/= Capitalism although there may be some relationship.

We have already pretty much reached the point where automation can completely replace human labor - the point you speak of has come and passed. The service sector is all but obsolete, the manufacturing sector can and should be nearly human-labor free (but isn't), and the human element in agriculture has long been replaced with tractors (although a small amount of people remain to man the tractors).

Capitalists/profiteers have resisted this transition because it is more profitable to employ cheap human labor than it is to buy expensive machines. That isn't to say we cannot afford these machines; just as we can afford to manufacture without destroying our environment, we can afford to have machines build for us. However capitalism resists innovation; the electric car is proof of this. All we want is profit, so that is all we will get. The utopia we could enjoy that we have earned will not be delivered because it is one giant prisoner's dilemma - and we are perpetually locked into the "snitching prisoner" scenario (instead of the cooperative one) and thus forfeit our ability to live free and comfortable. No, we will stay stuck, locked into menial labor and petty squables for cash while our true potential lays dormant for centuries to come.

We would never want to take all the "human" jobs plus there is always pimping, prostitution, and using your brain to become an engineer (and T.V. -n- Movies) . . .01000110 01010101 01000011 01001011 01110100 01101000 01100101 0110100001110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 01101011 01101110 0110111101110111

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

At 11/16/2010 12:38:04 AM, JimProfit wrote:Oh, and if you're an anarcho-capitalist, private court rooms. Goodluck getting some judge to side with the guy who CAN'T bribe him... I swear, an anarcho-capitalist argued with me that the judge would be fair and neutral because he'd get more buisness that way then being corrupt. How do you figure? Just spin it that the poor are bitter because they're wrong and just "parasites". Have the rich win every case, and occassionally just to insure the masses stay ignorant, side with the poor on an issue. Preferably a petty one.

Hehe I've never been given a reasonable answer to this question either :P But their answer is that in order to maximize profit, you should be a fair judge to get more business (i.e., people will seek out your court because they know that it's a fair one, and the judges want to ensure profit). Of course this doesn't address that the rich people could buy the judges off at convenient times and still profit, and also, how is the judge mutually agreed upon, and what happens if both parties don't agree? What if they cannot agree on a mutual judge they think is fair, and what happens if say a person was in a coma but was still being sued (like in your Wal-Mart example). Who would have said person's power of attorney, and wouldn't that require a legal system to uphold?

What you describe is basically post-scarcity Freedo. It almost certainly will never happen, and if it does, charitability is costless, yet still has that magic power to make you likable ("you" being the robot-tinkering nerd who owns this business). Enjoy never needing a job thanks to his benevolence making up for social awkwardness.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

Lol, I just ran that through a binary translator. It came out "I'm a giant homo." Why am I not surprised?

So you admit you are a giant homo!

Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.

At 11/16/2010 6:15:58 PM, theLwerd wrote:Hehe I've never been given a reasonable answer to this question either :P But their answer is that in order to maximize profit, you should be a fair judge to get more business (i.e., people will seek out your court because they know that it's a fair one, and the judges want to ensure profit). Of course this doesn't address that the rich people could buy the judges off at convenient times and still profit,

For an example, a poor person sued a rich person for 100 ounces of gold. What are the incentives for the rich person and the court, respectively? The rich person would have a set cap on how much he is willing to bribe. If he thought he had a 50% chance of winning, he likely wouldn't bribe the court more than 50 ounces. Even if he thought he had a 0% chance of winning, he wouldn't bribe the court more than the full 100 ounces. So then what are the court's incentives? The poor person has nothing to bribe with, right? Not true. The poor person could offer the court 99 of the ounces he would win in the case to not accept the rich person's bribe of 100 ounces. Let's say the judge is a cold, heartless person, and doesn't care about integrity. He still wouldn't take the rich person's bribe, because it comes at an additional cost. If the court is known to be biased, few people would frequent it, as most people want a fair trial. So, the rich person, knowing the court's incentives, would not bother to try to bribe the court, and the court wouldn't accept a bribe if it were offered. So, while what you said about unfair courts not being frequented is true, the real incentive is that in addition to the ability of poor people to offer a % of their potential winnings (like how lawyers can work for a share of the winnings of a case, rather than an up-front fee).

and also, how is the judge mutually agreed upon, and what happens if both parties don't agree? What if they cannot agree on a mutual judge they think is fair,

The individuals feuding wouldn't need to agree—their protection agencies would. A police firm wouldn't want armed conflict, because settling the case through an arbiter is less expensive and therefore more profitable for them. And if a person refused to listen to their protection firm, that firm would just not waste their time and money protecting him.

and what happens if say a person was in a coma but was still being sued (like in your Wal-Mart example). Who would have said person's power of attorney, and wouldn't that require a legal system to uphold?

I have no idea who'd have their power of attorney, but I can't imagine why that person would be different from the person it would be under the current system (usually a spouse or family member I think). It would require a legal system to uphold, yes, but there would be a legal system, so I don't understand your point. Law, at least legitimate laws (for example, laws against murder, rather than a bureaucracy's regulations), did not need to be enacted by government fiat—they have their root in English common law, which was created naturally from the bottom up through the decisions and written opinions of many independent judges. The most well-reasoned opinions and decisions were accepted as the norm without needing to be handed down by a legislature, and became the framework of society's legal system. Law did not need government to come about, and a legal system doesn't need government now.

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.

Honestly, capitalism is just way too optimistic and just assumes noone will be bad ever, and disputes will naturally solve themselves. They do, but it's through blood shed. The free market is the black market.

As well, the freemarket can't do sh1t about homosexuals. So what's MY incentive to be a capitalist? The only anti-homosexual position would be if I invented some kind of medication to turn your kid not gay anymore, that's presuming you weren't a gay appalogist yourself. I suppose I could not hire gay people, or con gay people in sales, and vicariously through shady buisness dealings undermine them. But it's all so arbitary and superfical... Honestly, capitalism does not appeal to anyone besides the complete sociopath who wants wealth and power for it's own sake. Capitalism does not uphold an ideology, a set of ethics, it's just darwinism. But not even real darwinism like naturalism. Just a social darwinism.